PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
176.45 - 178.59
86.62 - 184.48
124.91M / 173.95M (Avg.)
50.81 | 3.50
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
1.86%
Revenue growth under 50% of MRVL's 27.92%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
-2.73%
Negative gross profit growth while MRVL is at 1.72%. Joel Greenblatt would examine cost competitiveness or demand decline.
-8.56%
Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.
-8.56%
Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.
11.72%
Positive net income growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
13.33%
Positive EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
11.36%
Positive diluted EPS growth while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
0.33%
Share reduction more than 1.5x MRVL's 19.06%. David Dodd would see if the company is taking advantage of undervaluation to retire shares.
-0.16%
Reduced diluted shares while MRVL is at 16.97%. Joel Greenblatt would see a relative advantage if the competitor is diluting more.
-0.33%
Both companies cut dividends. Martin Whitman would look for a common factor, such as cyclical downturn or liquidity constraints.
-46.66%
Negative OCF growth while MRVL is at 383.40%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-57.02%
Negative FCF growth while MRVL is at 588.10%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
216.43%
10Y revenue/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 0.13%. David Dodd would confirm if management’s strategic vision consistently outperforms the competitor.
187.87%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see an underappreciated edge for the firm vs. the competitor.
116.94%
Positive 3Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a sharp short-term edge or successful pivot strategy.
911.25%
10Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 7.81%. David Dodd would check if a superior product mix or cost edge drives this outperformance.
186.18%
5Y OCF/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 26.42%. David Dodd would confirm if the firm has better cost structures or brand premium boosting mid-term cash flow.
69.97%
3Y OCF/share CAGR under 50% of MRVL's 245.18%. Michael Burry would worry about a significant short-term disadvantage in generating operational cash.
1678.73%
Positive 10Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might see a substantial advantage in bottom-line trajectory.
888.08%
Positive 5Y CAGR while MRVL is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong mid-term relative advantage.
344.99%
3Y net income/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 33.13%. David Dodd would confirm the company’s short-term strategies outmatch the competitor significantly.
240.19%
10Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 84.03%. David Dodd would confirm if consistent earnings retention or fewer write-downs drive this advantage.
109.17%
5Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 27.00%. David Dodd might see stronger earnings retention or fewer asset impairments fueling growth.
88.86%
3Y equity/share CAGR above 1.5x MRVL's 41.46%. David Dodd verifies the company’s short-term capital management far exceeds the competitor’s pace.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.01%
Stable or rising mid-term dividends while MRVL is cutting. John Neff sees an edge in consistent payouts vs. the competitor.
52.81%
Our short-term dividend growth is positive while MRVL cut theirs. John Neff views it as a comparative advantage in shareholder returns.
33.51%
AR growth well above MRVL's 2.37%. Michael Burry fears inflated revenue or higher default risk in the near future.
30.00%
We show growth while MRVL is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
6.02%
Positive asset growth while MRVL is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
7.38%
Positive BV/share change while MRVL is negative. John Neff sees a clear edge over a competitor losing equity.
-0.55%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
4.13%
R&D dropping or stable vs. MRVL's 22.47%. David Dodd sees near-term margin benefits if the product pipeline is already strong.
8.86%
We expand SG&A while MRVL cuts. John Neff might see the competitor as more cost-optimized unless we expect big payoffs from the overhead growth.